hypothetical major problem with well respected board member

[cammb]

What would I do? I would ignore your next post!

To.ny Biv.iano

[whiteymet]

Larry:

Sounds familiar..........

Seems to me it is the same thing as when someone contacts you with items you might want and you tell them that person to pick up the stuff for X dollars, then later when that person gets the items in question for you, you say you won't pay that much!

Agree?????

[drcy]

If this is a case of people making an agreement to lower the final price, the OP maybe should drop the issue. Some might call it collusion-- sort of a form of reverse shilling.

But, as earlier noted, with group lots it's not always clear cut because two bidders may want and not want different stuff from the lot and that may be an important part of the reason they make an agreement.

I'd never go in with multiple people on a lot, because it sounds too messy and confusing. Anything that requires a spreadsheet to document what goes where is something on which I'd pass.

[Jewish-collector]

Larry -

Why don't you just say what Joel Goodsen (Tom Cruise) said in the movie Risky Business. He said in one of the scenes, "Sometimes you gotta say WTF"

[ValKehl]

Larry, I like Daniel's suggestion (post #19) that you contact Leon, provide him with all the particulars, and ask him to contact this other Board member. I think this approach offers the best chance of getting this matter resolved amicably.
Val

[btcarfagno]

Reverse shilling was my first thought regarding the initial post. There seems to be a fine line between divvying up a lot (instead of of one person buying the lot and selling off the unwanted pieces) and two people conspiring not to both bid on a lot so that it goes cheaper (and then divvying up the lot). As a consignor I would feel as if I did not receive true market value either way.

If my original thoughts regarding the original post are valid, and both parties to this issue agreed not to "bid each other up", then I feel it is as bad as shilling. Justifying it by saying that it goes on all the time is just as bad as justifying shilling because " the buyer was willing to pay that much anyway so what is the big deal".

Just my worthless pair of pennies anyway.

Tom C

[JasonD08]

You are screwed. Just get over it and move on. No Val, Leon does not need to get into the middle. This is not a net54 issue. If it is a serious issue for you, you should out the member and get opinions once he pleads his case. If that does not happen you have no credibility whining about trusting some person's (we do not know) word that they would split a deal.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cammb

What would I do? I would ignore your next post!

What would I do? Tell this poster (CAMMB) to put his name in his post. You can say what you want to but if you want to poke or jab someone (on this board), put your name next to it.

and to add, I don't care to get in the middle of anything but if I can help I will always try to...but prefer for members to work it out themselves..

[Exhibitman]

Or what we all should behave as if we were...

The issue of whether a bidding partnership is collusive is a close one [my experience is that the partnerships generate higher bids overall by pooling resources on the lot] but entirely irrelevant. Gentlemen do and do not do certain things not because they are enforceable contractual obligations but because they are the right things to do when interacting with other gentlemen. A gentleman:

--honors his wagers.
--keeps his word.
--watches out for his friends
--never cheats his co-venturers.

I partner with others on auction lots all the time. Never had a problem so far. Is it enforceable? No. Nor would I try to enforce it if the bidding partner decided to renege. I figure once someone gives you a cheap lesson about who he really is, choose to believe it. If a member here chose to cheat another member and it is clear-cut I'd favor outing him and then suspending him for a time. Might not teach the offender anything about how to behave but it would prevent others from being harmed. That said, it is the OP's choice whether to do so.

I have heard of certain members here whose word is no good on deals such as the one referenced in the OP and have refused to partner with those people on auction lots. Whoever it is this time, don't think for a moment that word of your behavior won't get around off the front page, so to speak, and that there won't be consequences to it even if the OP refuses to out you here.

[vintagetoppsguy]

At this point, I think the OP is either a total nut job, or isn't telling the entire truth. He claims he don't want to give up the name, but he's never had a problem outing people by name before...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171975

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185189

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps he doesn't want to out him because the guy would come back with another side of the story.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps he doesn't want to out him because the guy would come back with another side of the story.

I have wasted many a day pondering the thoughts and actions of others. In time, I realized this was one of my biggest wastes of time.

I would start this thread so the other party might reconsider the deal to avoid being outted. I'd think if he did "make" upward of 10k and he is a cheat, he doesnt care to be outted, as 10k is probably the biggest haul he is going to cheat this board out of.

edited: My cheat decided 7500 was a big enough risk to his reputation, and our friendship. Since I knew him personally, and the deal wasnt established on these boards, I decided at that time NOT to post about it.

[ruth-gehrig]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

At this point, I think the OP is either a total nut job, or isn't telling the entire truth. He claims he don't want to give up the name, but he's never had a problem outing people by name before...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171975

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185189

Appears he's been temporarily banned before as well.